| Nick Kiddle ( @ 2008-04-15 18:26:00 |
Differences of opinion
Which of these statements is not like the others?
a) The final movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is the most beautiful piece of music ever written.
b) Pizza is not complete without black olives.
c) Transsexual men are men, even if they get pregnant.
d) Nigel Adkins is a reasonable manager who was hopelessly out of his depth this season.
a), b) and d) all refer to my opinions. I've neglected to add a disclaimer saying that it's my opinion, but I trust intelligent human beings to figure out that things like the beauty of music, the completeness of pizza or the managerial acumen of Nigel Adkins can really only be matters of opinion. Therefore, if you tell me that Beethoven is overrated, anchovies are the truly essential pizza topping, and Adkins was the single person most responsible for our relegation, we might have a vigourous debate, but it's not likely to get nasty.
c) is a different beast. It's not so much a matter of opinion as a matter of definition. There are all sorts of definitions of "man" floating round, some of which include trans men and some of which don't. The ones that don't, the ones that revolve around actual or theoretical ability to get pregnant, are kind of essentialist. And kind of transphobic. And, if you start using them around trans people, kind of rude.
Trans people are real, and there's plenty of evidence that we're not just making shit up to be awkward. If your dictionary says there can never be such a thing as a female-bodied man, it's time to get a better dictionary. This isn't negotiable as far as I'm concerned. I'm fed up of the conversation where I explain trans in general and me in particular and the other person keeps coming back with, "But how do you know?"
I just know, OK? This isn't up for debate, because it's an inherently unlevel playing field. You can have pleasant intellectual exercises while remaining completely detatched, but I can never be detatched. We're talking about me, and whether my own sense of what I am is even admissible as evidence, and for some strange reason I always come out of these discussions shaking like a leaf.
And that doesn't make me close-minded. It doesn't mean I want everyone to agree with me: see a), b) and d) for evidence of my ability to tolerate different points of view. It's just that some things aren't about different points of view as much as they're about not being an asshole.
Which of these statements is not like the others?
a) The final movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is the most beautiful piece of music ever written.
b) Pizza is not complete without black olives.
c) Transsexual men are men, even if they get pregnant.
d) Nigel Adkins is a reasonable manager who was hopelessly out of his depth this season.
a), b) and d) all refer to my opinions. I've neglected to add a disclaimer saying that it's my opinion, but I trust intelligent human beings to figure out that things like the beauty of music, the completeness of pizza or the managerial acumen of Nigel Adkins can really only be matters of opinion. Therefore, if you tell me that Beethoven is overrated, anchovies are the truly essential pizza topping, and Adkins was the single person most responsible for our relegation, we might have a vigourous debate, but it's not likely to get nasty.
c) is a different beast. It's not so much a matter of opinion as a matter of definition. There are all sorts of definitions of "man" floating round, some of which include trans men and some of which don't. The ones that don't, the ones that revolve around actual or theoretical ability to get pregnant, are kind of essentialist. And kind of transphobic. And, if you start using them around trans people, kind of rude.
Trans people are real, and there's plenty of evidence that we're not just making shit up to be awkward. If your dictionary says there can never be such a thing as a female-bodied man, it's time to get a better dictionary. This isn't negotiable as far as I'm concerned. I'm fed up of the conversation where I explain trans in general and me in particular and the other person keeps coming back with, "But how do you know?"
I just know, OK? This isn't up for debate, because it's an inherently unlevel playing field. You can have pleasant intellectual exercises while remaining completely detatched, but I can never be detatched. We're talking about me, and whether my own sense of what I am is even admissible as evidence, and for some strange reason I always come out of these discussions shaking like a leaf.
And that doesn't make me close-minded. It doesn't mean I want everyone to agree with me: see a), b) and d) for evidence of my ability to tolerate different points of view. It's just that some things aren't about different points of view as much as they're about not being an asshole.